Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness:Icetech3: Lets not talk about how bad electric cars are for the environment... A: Create a shiatton of batterys.. take a look at the chemicals used... B: Batteries have a VERY short lifespan, especially compared to a gas motor.. C: Hey! Lets dispose of those shiatty toxic batteries by the thousands now... The whole electric car idea is bullshiat being pushed on people. Just horrible...

P.S. you should learn the truth behind recycling.. just recycling paper is VERY bad for the environment... the chemicals used.. AND the power used to recycle even paper is unreal..

The battery thing is why I just shake my head when the hippies get all jazzed up about hybrids and EVs. The metals that go into those batteries don't grow on trees... they're typically strip-mined. Then shipped somewhere to be smelted, shipped somewhere else to be processed into batteries, which are then shipped to the automaker's plant to be installed in the car, which is then shipped to a distributor, that then ships it to a dealer, that sells it to you. A Prius is about as green as a tire fire... any illusions had about reducing one's carbon footprint by owning one are just that... illusions. By the time you buy one and drive it home, the batteries alone have traveled more miles than you'll likely drive the first year of ownership.

Besides, if you drive like you actually have someplace to be, your mileage isn't any better than your typical gasoline-powered mid-size car. Yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. pass-me-doing-90-in-your-Prius.

So you know that lithium for the lithium-ion batteries (like the kind in the Tesla Model S) comes from brine that is pumped from under the Atacama desert and allowed to naturally dry in the sun, and is not only one of the cleanest minerals in the WORLD to mine, it is also a natural by-product of the mining they were ALREADY doing to produce fertilizer from teh same brine-drying process.

theorellior:Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: My opinion has nothing to do with the basics law of thermodynamics getting in the way of your tree-hugging circle jerk.

Are you even reading my comments? The ones that talk about energy tradeoffs and suchlike? Or are you so invested in counting coup against an environazi that you're turning off your brain?

Wait... who are you again? Oh, I'm sorry... I'm sorry. You must be mistaken in thinking that I really give enough of a shiat about this thread to keep tabs on who I've responded to that responded to my response.

/I really should write down your names or something//takes off my robe and wizard hat

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food:Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Icetech3: Lets not talk about how bad electric cars are for the environment... A: Create a shiatton of batterys.. take a look at the chemicals used... B: Batteries have a VERY short lifespan, especially compared to a gas motor.. C: Hey! Lets dispose of those shiatty toxic batteries by the thousands now... The whole electric car idea is bullshiat being pushed on people. Just horrible...

P.S. you should learn the truth behind recycling.. just recycling paper is VERY bad for the environment... the chemicals used.. AND the power used to recycle even paper is unreal..

The battery thing is why I just shake my head when the hippies get all jazzed up about hybrids and EVs. The metals that go into those batteries don't grow on trees... they're typically strip-mined. Then shipped somewhere to be smelted, shipped somewhere else to be processed into batteries, which are then shipped to the automaker's plant to be installed in the car, which is then shipped to a distributor, that then ships it to a dealer, that sells it to you. A Prius is about as green as a tire fire... any illusions had about reducing one's carbon footprint by owning one are just that... illusions. By the time you buy one and drive it home, the batteries alone have traveled more miles than you'll likely drive the first year of ownership.

Besides, if you drive like you actually have someplace to be, your mileage isn't any better than your typical gasoline-powered mid-size car. Yes, I'm talking to you, Mr. pass-me-doing-90-in-your-Prius.

So you know that lithium for the lithium-ion batteries (like the kind in the Tesla Model S) comes from brine that is pumped from under the Atacama desert and allowed to naturally dry in the sun, and is not only one of the cleanest minerals in the WORLD to mine, it is also a natural by-product of the mining they were ALREADY doing to produce fertilizer from teh same brine-drying process.

But you obviously knew that.

Obviously.

...

My point:

Mining vehicles and equipment use fuel/electricityTransport vehicles use fuel/electricityManufacturing facilities and machines use fuel/electricityMore transport vehicles use more fuel/electricityAutomotive plants use fuel/electrcityAutomobile carriers (trains/ships = more transportation) use fuel/electricityAutomotive distributors/processors use fuel/electricityOnce again, Automobile carriers (Trucks at this step) use fuel/electricityI'm not much worried with the Dealership itself, but more electricity used there for prepping the vehicle for sale

Look how Green my car is!

The Strip mining itself is a very minor factor in the equation. What I'm saying is that it would help to be honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint) of manufacturing these vehicles, but if the manufacturers did that, they probably wouldn't sell.

Wait. People are complaining about being able to refuel your car for *FREE FOR LIFE* via solar power, just because It takes 30 minutes every 150 miles?

I don't know about you, I usually like to take a short break every ~3 hours of driving. Grab a snack, take a piss, get some fuel, etc. That usually takes 20 minutes. An extra 10 minutes to take a break isn't going to ruin any of my cross-country road trip plans.

Not anger, i just don't see why you would be pushing back on this as much as you are... though with that engineering degree something tells me it might have something to do with your employment...

Personally, i don't think the country is ready for EV yet... because they aren't ready to give up or change their habits...

That's the real problem with innovation and change... people... people just can't seem to wrap their brain around doing something different than they've been used to doing...

I see that attitude at my job all the time... people recieve a new policy and pitch a fit because "that's not how we did it before!"

Who cares? it's how you do it until it changes again, and again, and again...

It's not the "love" of oil that people have, it's the love of routine... the love of familiarity... some people (washington and new jersey for example) still don't even know how to fill up their own gas tank, asking them to plug a cord into a vehicle is like asking them to flay open an infant with a straight razor...

Then, to top it off, they work harder and do more research trying to NOT change their habits than spending it just learning the new system...

I work for a company that makes medical equipment, so I'm not in the automotive industry at all -- although I do live pretty close to Tesla, actually.

My attitude toward cars is that they should basically disappear. I have enough to think about in life, I don't want my transportation to take up any unnecessary thought. I certainly don't get emotionally invested in cars. I want to be able to get from A to B as quickly, cheaply, and reliably as possible -- without worrying where A & B are, how far they are apart, etc., etc. Right now, EVs can't really achieve that.

Gas is environmentally messy, but as a liquid fuel it does have some big advantages: it can be pumped out of a simple tank and into another tank very quickly. There's a lot of energy stored in a small volume, and it can be moved around & transferred easily.

If an EV could be recharged quickly enough, and stations were common enough, then I'd reconsider. As it is, EVs may already be suitable for some people, depending on their priorities & driving habits. So be it. I'm not out to rain on anybody else's parade, just to provide my own perspective. Like much of engineering, there isn't a "wrong" answer, just different solutions for different requirements.

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness:What I'm saying is that it would help to be honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint) of manufacturing these vehicles, but if the manufacturers did that, they probably wouldn't sell.

So... you're going for a global definition of "green"? That all cars suck environmentally, even the hybrids?

This would make more sense, but since you started off with typical herpaderp about batteries and stuff, it became more confusing.

Mining vehicles and equipment use fuel/electricityTransport vehicles use fuel/electricityManufacturing facilities and machines use fuel/electricityMore transport vehicles use more fuel/electricityAutomotive plants use fuel/electrcityAutomobile carriers (trains/ships = more transportation) use fuel/electricityAutomotive distributors/processors use fuel/electricityOnce again, Automobile carriers (Trucks at this step) use fuel/electricityI'm not much worried with the Dealership itself, but more electricity used there for prepping the vehicle for sale

Look how Green my car is!

The Strip mining itself is a very minor factor in the equation. What I'm saying is that it would help to be honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint) of manufacturing these vehicles, but if the manufacturers did that, they probably wouldn't sell.

How much electricity do you think it takes to:

- find crude oil- drill for crude oil- pull crude out of the ground- transport crude to a refinery- refine a gallon of gas (according to the DOE, this step alone consumes 7.5 kWh per gallon, enough to propel an electric car ~30 miles)- transport that gas to a refueling station- power the refueling station, waiting for a customer- pumping that gasoline into your tank

Before an ounce of gasoline reaches your tank, a massive amount of energy has been put into creating and transporting that gas. And that doesn't factor in the gasoline's ~10% mix of ethanol, the fuel/fertilizer/water required to grow the corn for that ethanol, etc.

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness:my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness: Icetech3: So you know that lithium for the lithium-ion batteries (like the kind in the Tesla Model S) comes from brine that is pumped from under the Atacama desert and allowed to naturally dry in the sun, and is not only one of the cleanest minerals in the WORLD to mine, it is also a natural by-product of the mining they were ALREADY doing to produce fertilizer from teh same brine-drying process.

But you obviously knew that.

Obviously.

...

My point:

Mining vehicles and equipment use fuel/electricity - And gas mining doesn't?Transport vehicles use fuel/electricity - And gas transport doesn't?Manufacturing facilities and machines use fuel/electricity - And gas refineries don't?More transport vehicles use more fuel/electricity - And transporting gas vehicles doesn't?Automotive plants use fuel/electrcity - And gas automotive plants don't?Automobile carriers (trains/ships = more transportation) use fuel/electricity - And gas carriers don't?Automotive distributors/processors use fuel/electricity - And gas automobile distributers don't?Once again, Automobile carriers (Trucks at this step) use fuel/electricity - And gas trucks don't?I'm not much worried with the Dealership itself, but more electricity used there for prepping the vehicle for sale - Actually here again you are retarded since Tesla's aren't sold in a traditional dealership, the size required for a traditional dealership is much less energy efficient than the electric...so thanks for proving another point for me.

Look how Green my car is!

The Strip mining What strip mining, specifically, are you talking about, because it isn't for the batteries in the Tesla. itself is a very minor factor in the equation. What I'm saying is that it would help to be honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint) of manufacturing these vehicles, but if the manufacturers did that, they probably wouldn't sell.

So since we covered that gas has zero advantages over Lithium Ion batteries (from an environmental standpoint, obviously the economic side hasn't matured yet, but it is catching up) lets see...

-Electricity can be transported via already-in-place electric lines much more efficiently than gas can be trucked around-Oil spills in the ocean and on land in places like Nigeria are HUGE environmental disasters...pumping brine and letting it dry in the sun...not much chance for a disaster there-Electricity can be generated from a multidude of sources, gasoline comes from oil (biodiesel isn't gasoline, and it has its own problems)

And for the record, I am not saying "ZOMG, we need to replace all gas cars with EV's NOW!", having a diversified fleet of vehicle types is better for the country as a whole, and I see a typical family scenario where there are 2 cars (1 EV and 1 ICE) being EXTREMELY advantageous for day-to-day operations.

Also, I am not saying EV's are even better at all. Right now, they don't make a lot of economic sense unless you are in a small minority of people who have all the right conditions (can afford the initial cost/early-adopter risk, can live with the range, have a space to charge it, and drive enough that the gas savings are worthwhile).

But claiming that Lithium Ion batteries are a bigger environmental threat than gasoline production/storage is retarded.

And you claiming that you just want "honesty" when you are being irrationally dishonest every step of the way is the most hypocritical ignorant douchebaggery I have seen all day.

Honest Bender:knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day?

A lot of people, actually. Now, obviously this is still a niche product. I don't know about you, but I live in an apartment complex so there's no convenient way for me to charge an electric car in the parking lot. So right away the bulk of your market is going to be people with a home/garage. But considering the price tag, most people in the market for a car like this probably already own their own home.

But if I had the means I'd definitely snap one of these up. Slap some solar panels on the roof of the garage and a small battery array... For most people, it would save them a couple/few hundred dollars a month. Not really enough to recoop your costs on everything, but still pretty nice. Maybe even enough to take a good sized bite out of the monthly car payment...

And as others have said, the electric car in general is still more or less in its infancy. I'll be interested to see where this leads the auto industry in 10 years.

does this mean we are foregoing hydrogen? cause that seems to have a whole ass load of potential

/probably can't have infrastructure for both electric & hydrogen along with petrol//we need a new 'standard'

jshine:Hollie Maea: Also, goddamn there is some ignorance in this thread. Why are people so terrified of progress?

It's nice that these are cheap to refuel, but it seems like a step backward to go from a vehicle that can be refueled in 5 minutes to one that takes hours to "fuel". Electric cars are great in principle, but battery technology sucks, quite frankly, and its at the core of the design. Fuel cells or some kind of internal generator (similar to the Chevy Volt) would seem like a better idea.

there are other significant advantages to getting rid of the ICE component all together... think total cost of ownership... eliminate, oil changes, tune ups, anti-freeze, brake jobs (using the regenerative braking systems uses the motor rather than pad/caliper to slow/stop), exhaust and expensive catalytic converters, air filters... with electric only, your only real maintenance is tires (maybe wiper blades...)

Similar grille openings.Similar headlight placement.Similar hood surface treatments over headlamp cluster.Similar greenhouse.Similar window groupings.Similar plastic filler on rear quarter window.Exact same door cutlines.Similar bladed wheel design.Both have wheels pushed to the extremities - the Concorde by design, the Tesla by necessity to fit the battery.Both have short overhangs as a result; the Tesla arguably has too much front end, not really needed (no ICE) so they turned it into a second trunk.

The biggest difference, design-wise, is the Tesla has the all-too-common fender vents (why do they need fake vents that imply an ICE?), and the Tesla has flush door handles.

I actually think the Tesla is a great car, and that Elon Musk has really accomplished something huge in getting it made. OTOH, aside from aerodynamic concerns (which is one of the Concorde's more noteworthy achievements: cab-forward design)... why did Tesla let von Holzhausen be so lazy with the design?

inner ted:does this mean we are foregoing hydrogen? cause that seems to have a whole ass load of potential

/probably can't have infrastructure for both electric & hydrogen along with petrol//we need a new 'standard'

Despite the volatility of gasoline, on the whole it's actually remarkably stable at normal temps and Hollywood explosions are extremely rare even in the worst built cars of the 60's. Hydrogen, on the other hand, is one of the most reactive materials in existence. Yes, in liquid form it holds a lot of energy in a compact volume and is incredibly easy to manufacture, but the safety drop tends to outweigh the benefits in a world where accidents are common. They'll always be a niche.

That's not to say Li batteries can't explode, but that danger level is roughly similar to gasoline's.

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food:So since we covered that gas has zero advantages over Lithium Ion batteries (from an environmental standpoint, obviously the economic side hasn't matured yet, but it is catching up) lets see...

You seem to be arguing with someone who feels we should abandon modern life and go back to farming our own food; it's the only premise any of his arguments make sense for.

inner ted:does this mean we are foregoing hydrogen? cause that seems to have a whole ass load of potential

No clue, dude. I like the idea of hydrogen fuel cells. Water for waste, nice dense energy storage medium, readily available.... It hits a lot of good points. But then there's the whole thing with it being explosive... You can't really produce it in any reasonable quantity without wasting a lot of energy...

Could be the benefits outweigh the detriments. Really, it'll probably come down to what the industry backs.

If you saw them both on the road, or even looked at all of the pictures a little closer, you wouldn't make such a silly statement. One looks like a cross between a sedan and a muscle car, one looks like a sedan. The Tesla was intentionally designed to look sedan-ish and muscle-ish without being an overt copy of another car, rather than being a lazy recreation of other designs, because they're pandering to the luxury market, which is fairly conservative.

Much like the roadster, which was designed to pander to sports car enthusiasts by mimicking Italian designs. That's just what Tesla does; they're all about technology, while the style attempts to fit in with the rest of the road.

Personally, I think it looks like several Hyundai models on the road right now, rather than that ugly boat you saw.

Lets talk frankly about internal cleanliness:Electric cars are something I support, but if you want a standing ovation from me, do something about the hundreds of thousands of 18-wheelers burning diesel at 4-6 mpg. At that point, I'll concede that saving 1200 gallons a year is awesome (my local station pumps that much in a hour on a Monday morning)

If ever there were a platform for something like the Volt, it would be semi-tractors.

Honest Bender:inner ted: does this mean we are foregoing hydrogen? cause that seems to have a whole ass load of potential

No clue, dude. I like the idea of hydrogen fuel cells. Water for waste, nice dense energy storage medium, readily available.... It hits a lot of good points. But then there's the whole thing with it being explosive... You can't really produce it in any reasonable quantity without wasting a lot of energy...

Could be the benefits outweigh the detriments. Really, it'll probably come down to what the industry backs.

Well, the car makers are pretty solidly behind FCVs:

Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Nissan, Hyundai have all expressed plans to sell HFCVs in the next few years.

foxyshadis:inner ted: does this mean we are foregoing hydrogen? cause that seems to have a whole ass load of potential

/probably can't have infrastructure for both electric & hydrogen along with petrol//we need a new 'standard'

Despite the volatility of gasoline, on the whole it's actually remarkably stable at normal temps and Hollywood explosions are extremely rare even in the worst built cars of the 60's. Hydrogen, on the other hand, is one of the most reactive materials in existence. Yes, in liquid form it holds a lot of energy in a compact volume and is incredibly easy to manufacture, but the safety drop tends to outweigh the benefits in a world where accidents are common. They'll always be a niche.

That's not to say Li batteries can't explode, but that danger level is roughly similar to gasoline's.

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: So since we covered that gas has zero advantages over Lithium Ion batteries (from an environmental standpoint, obviously the economic side hasn't matured yet, but it is catching up) lets see...

You seem to be arguing with someone who feels we should abandon modern life and go back to farming our own food; it's the only premise any of his arguments make sense for.

Woah, woah, woah there buddy. Farming food requires strip mining the topsoil, removal of acres of existing carbon-absorbing vegetation to make room for veggies, use of numerous fertilizers and pesticides, and don't even get me started on bovine methane production.

We really shouldn't even be eating food. If you are honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint)of manufacturing this food, everytime you eat something, you are personally destroying the environment. We should all just suck gasoline through a straw for 3 meals a day.

They are indeed connected to the grid, but I wouldn't call generating an excess of power a "supplement."

BusinessWeek: "Musk also serves as the chairman of SolarCity, a residential and commercial solar-panel installer that has built car port technology for the Tesla stations. The stations will generate more power than the cars need, which means Tesla will sell power back to the grid"Link

This is their post 2-year plan for 30 minute charging stations, which supplement the thousands of standard, public charging stations already in place. (I currently have 13 public charging spots on the 25 mile drive between work and home).

MrSteve007:This text is now purple: Those stations supplement from solar, but are primarily driven by grid energy.

They are indeed connected to the grid, but I wouldn't call generating an excess of power a "supplement."

BusinessWeek: "Musk also serves as the chairman of SolarCity, a residential and commercial solar-panel installer that has built car port technology for the Tesla stations. The stations will generate more power than the cars need, which means Tesla will sell power back to the grid" Link

This is their post 2-year plan for 30 minute charging stations, which supplement the thousands of standard, public charging stations already in place. (I currently have 13 public charging spots on the 25 mile drive between work and home).

The power to recharge a Tesla is much more than what the solar PVs can provide in that same time frame, so there must be a grid connection to provide the power during recharging.

But, the solar PVs are constantly feeding power back into the grid, even when no charging is taking place. There may be periods where days or weeks pass when no charging occurs, so that the PVs - over time - provide an overall surplus of power relative the amount used for recharging.

As the chargers are used more and more frequently, the "surplus" created by the solar PVs will disappear entirely.

MrSteve007:This text is now purple: Those stations supplement from solar, but are primarily driven by grid energy.

They are indeed connected to the grid, but I wouldn't call generating an excess of power a "supplement."

BusinessWeek: "Musk also serves as the chairman of SolarCity, a residential and commercial solar-panel installer that has built car port technology for the Tesla stations. The stations will generate more power than the cars need, which means Tesla will sell power back to the grid" Link

This is their post 2-year plan for 30 minute charging stations, which supplement the thousands of standard, public charging stations already in place. (I currently have 13 public charging spots on the 25 mile drive between work and home).

One more example of why you are farkied as "Super Solar Steve", you have more useful, practical, real-world knowledge of solar installations than anyone else I have ever seen on fark...no real point to this post, just wanted to give you a shout-out

I'll never get one as I'd obviously be forced to sell my other car for long range trips and since I can't drive the Tesla from Seattle to Hawaii without a fueling stop then this is obviously the dumbest thing ever.

ajgeek:Rapmaster2000: People talk about these cars like they're so great, but what if you have to get to an island. Then what do you do? Exactly. That's why I only commute by hovercraft.

Pfft. What if you have no water or flat land to move over? This is why I only commute by helicopter. You can't take the sky from me!

And what if you have to get to the moon, smartypants? This is why I only fly my replica Flash Gordon spaceship everywhere!

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food:We really shouldn't even be eating food. If you are honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint)of manufacturing this food, everytime you eat something, you are personally destroying the environment. We should all just suck gasoline through a straw for 3 meals a day.

I bet if you replaced "gasoline" with "solar-grown moss tofu" or some zero-carbon invention like that he would agree 100% with you.

Hydrogen is WAY overrated. Volumetric power density sucks and will always suck, and it's hard to make.

And using it in fuel cells is a non starter. Fuel cells have VERY bad power density, are expensive and inefficient. Battery technology is taking a big lead in hydrogen, and that lead will only grow.

Of course, fuel cells have higher power density than batteries. That's why an FCV can get better range than a BEV, even though the BEV is more energy efficient.

They're also 2-3x more efficient than the ICEs that they'll be replacing. And they're getting cheaper all the time. Toyota will be selling a fuel cell powered sedan with almost double the $100K Model S's range for half the price.

BEVs and FCVs will coexist in the future automotive market. BEVs are ideal for smaller, short-distance vehicles. FCVs are much better for larger vehicles that carry bigger loads or travel long-distances. Consumers will have plenty of options to choose from utilizing both technologies.

Bladel:knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

I'm interested. The range seems closer to 275, which should cover most days. $60k is about the same as a BMW, except for the "never buy gas again" bit.

People don't get that these are great daily drivers, but not yet ready for road trips. I guarantee you I would be nowhere near the 200 mile limit... closer to fifteen for me. Charge with solar panels, and suddenly you aren't paying for transportation, much less gas.

I'm going to get one. I have a 2001 Acura that just broke 50k miles (I bought it new). My commute is under 15 miles per day, and I can't remember the last time I drove more than 200 miles. Gas savings are about $1200 per year for my driving habits, so in ten years the cost of the car drops to most mid-level luxury cars. My only reservation is maintenance costs and procedures. I know how to change the oil and replace air filters, but I don't know the first thing about maintaining an electric motor.

1. Gravimetric energy density vs volumetric energy density. Hydrogen has the highest gravimetric energy density of any chemistry driven substance (as opposed to nuclear driven) in the universe. But it has poor volumetric energy density--the volumetric energy density is a function of how much it can be compressed, which is a metallurgical problem. Metallurgy is one of the most mature fields in all of technology, and so further improvements are likely to be minimal.

2. Energy density vs power density. Although hydrogen as a fuel has a much better gravimetric energy density and a comparable volumetric energy density with batteries, the POWER density of fuel cells (speaking nothing of the fuel) is inherently very low. So to get decent power out of a fuel cell, the stack has to be very large and heavy and expensive. And that's not taking into account the space used up to store the hydrogen. Fuel cells are ok for weenie cars, but the limitations make it unlikely that a robust hydrogen network is going to be produced. By the time one would be, batteries will be better in terms of volumetric energy density, their gravimetric energy density will be good enough that it's no longer an issue (this is almost true already), the price will be much lower than fuel cells (fuel cells have a harder uphill battery to bring costs down than batteries) and batteries will have greatly lowered the gap in the one issue for which hydrogen has a clear advantage--"refueling" time.

foxyshadis:ajgeek: Rapmaster2000: People talk about these cars like they're so great, but what if you have to get to an island. Then what do you do? Exactly. That's why I only commute by hovercraft.

Pfft. What if you have no water or flat land to move over? This is why I only commute by helicopter. You can't take the sky from me!

And what if you have to get to the moon, smartypants? This is why I only fly my replica Flash Gordon spaceship everywhere!

my_cats_breath_smells_like_cat_food: We really shouldn't even be eating food. If you are honest about the actual cost (or carbon footprint)of manufacturing this food, everytime you eat something, you are personally destroying the environment. We should all just suck gasoline through a straw for 3 meals a day.

I bet if you replaced "gasoline" with "solar-grown moss tofu" or some zero-carbon invention like that he would agree 100% with you.

Pfffft, sure it can get you to the moon but what about when you want to load the whole family in the car and travel back in time? That is why for me it is a DeLorean or bust!

rga184:Bladel: knbber2: Who wants a car that can only go about 200 miles and then has to recharge for most of the day? And the baseline is only $60K, what a bargain.

I'm interested. The range seems closer to 275, which should cover most days. $60k is about the same as a BMW, except for the "never buy gas again" bit.

People don't get that these are great daily drivers, but not yet ready for road trips. I guarantee you I would be nowhere near the 200 mile limit... closer to fifteen for me. Charge with solar panels, and suddenly you aren't paying for transportation, much less gas.

The Model S is an excellent family car for around town, or a business commuter who car pools (come on, it's the right eco thing to do!).

Depending on how it's driven on the Interstate, owners may or may not enjoy the amount of time they have to spend recharging. Drive a steady 55mph and you'll do fine. OTOH, drive at 75mph (general average Interstate speeds) or gasp, 80-85mph (naughty!) and your range shrinks considerably.

Also, keep in mind the chart is figuring a spherical cow: flat road, no wind, no HVAC use, no cargo/passengers other than driver.

Mr. Right:Having a farm and needing to haul heavy stuff and also not being very darned close to anything so that driving is required, the idea of an electric car appeals to me not even a little bit. However, train locomotives are electric vehicles that happen to have their own, onboard diesel generator, They can obviously haul heavy loads and trains offer the most best ton/mile fuel efficiency, other than a barge floating down the river.

Not an engineer so can any of the Fark automotive experts tell me if a car/truck with an efficient diesel engine powering an electric motor is feasible? It would seem to me that a 2 cylinder diesel could run a significant electric motor and, with even a modest storage battery on board, could be a lot more efficient and allow a much greater range. Or are there vehicles out there that do that already? Or is it just a colossally stupid idea?

That was the original design for the chevy volt, before some jackass focus-grouped it and had it be a regular hybrid. Your idea is not bad at all. You can run the diesel engine at its most efficient revs and tuning, and you save weight because you no longer need to gave a heavy transmission to transfer the power. Best of all, as technology becomes available, you can drop a hydrogen fuel cell in there, or a gas engine if there's not a lot of diesel available, or a mr fusion if you get it in 2015.

Kraftwerk Orange:BEVs and FCVs will coexist in the future automotive market. BEVs are ideal for smaller, short-distance vehicles. FCVs are much better for larger vehicles that carry bigger loads or travel long-distances. Consumers will have plenty of options to choose from utilizing both technologies.

I know, I learned all about how hydrogen cars are the future of transportation from Jack Nicholson! Link!

I have a feeling the reliable and affordable hydrogen car will be about the same year as "the Year of Linux" comes to be.

Kraftwerk Orange:The power to recharge a Tesla is much more than what the solar PVs can provide in that same time frame, so there must be a grid connection to provide the power during recharging.

I agree that the load during charging of *multiple* cars would likely exceed the current that can be supplied by PV, and of course during a cloudy day, the PV array would supply a fraction of the energy needed.

They claim the 30-min charge can give 50% to a nearly depleted 85 KW battery pack (so 42.5 kWh). That means the array size would be about 90KW to charge 1 car an hour during the day. (in reality, 90KW of panels would supply a total of 484 kWh per day in an area like San Francisco, enough energy to 50% charge 11.3 Teslas every day)

Each panel supplies roughly 220 watts (in a 3x5 area). That works out to be a bit over 400 panels, or 6,000 sq.ft. of roof space. That's pretty do-able. Most convenience store roofs are about that size, not including the area above the gas pumps.

Hollie Maea:Kraftwerk Orange: Of course, fuel cells have higher power density than batteries.

You are confusing a bunch of things:

1. Gravimetric energy density vs volumetric energy density. Hydrogen has the highest gravimetric energy density of any chemistry driven substance (as opposed to nuclear driven) in the universe. But it has poor volumetric energy density--the volumetric energy density is a function of how much it can be compressed, which is a metallurgical problem. Metallurgy is one of the most mature fields in all of technology, and so further improvements are likely to be minimal.

2. Energy density vs power density. Although hydrogen as a fuel has a much better gravimetric energy density and a comparable volumetric energy density with batteries, the POWER density of fuel cells (speaking nothing of the fuel) is inherently very low. So to get decent power out of a fuel cell, the stack has to be very large and heavy and expensive. And that's not taking into account the space used up to store the hydrogen. Fuel cells are ok for weenie cars, but the limitations make it unlikely that a robust hydrogen network is going to be produced. By the time one would be, batteries will be better in terms of volumetric energy density, their gravimetric energy density will be good enough that it's no longer an issue (this is almost true already), the price will be much lower than fuel cells (fuel cells have a harder uphill battery to bring costs down than batteries) and batteries will have greatly lowered the gap in the one issue for which hydrogen has a clear advantage--"refueling" time.

The illustrations I posted should have helped to clear up anything my words might have not.

You can store more energy in less space using compressed hydrogen gas than you can in a battery. That's why an FCV has greater range than a BEV.

I'm not sure why you mention metallurgy, indeed, we've known how to build tanks to store compressed hydrogen for a long time. We're getting better at it too, using carbon fiber tanks and impermeable plastic membranes to double tank pressure capabilities to over 10,000psi. Soon, there will be other methods of storing hydrogen in metal hydrides - great advances are happening there to store hydrogen without needing to compress it. Of course, ionic compression technologies are drastically improving as well...

The energy density/power density issue is easily overcome. Most FCVs carry a very small li-ion battery to manage the peak power draws of acceleration, and to capture peak regenerated poer during braking. Other than for those momentary instantaneous needs, why would you want to carry around a massively voluminous and heavy battery when you can store more energy in less space in a hydrogen tank?

And yes, I did look at your pictures. Hydrogen has a slight advantage in volumetric energy density, but less room for improvement. This will end up being a wash.

And the Japanese car companies have been promising cheap high range fuel cell vehicles for the past 15 years. I'll believe it when I see it. And also note the very low efficiency of the fuel cell. Better than ICE but not much better, and this does not take into account the very low efficiency of producing hydrogen.

And look at the bad power density I was talking about! 240Kg for a small 93kW stack. This number is going to fall a lot slower than battery weights.